[R] Combinations of true/false values where one pair is mutually exclusive

[Sarah Goslee]

Given that clarification, I'd just generate the full set and remove
the ones you aren't interested in, as in:


scenarios <- expand.grid(A = c("pass", "fail"), B = c("pass", "fail"), C =
c("pass", "fail"), D = c("pass", "fail"), E = c("pass", "fail"), F =
c("pass", "fail"))


scenarios <- subset(scenarios, !(E == "fail" & F == "fail))

Sarah

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:41 AM, R Stafford <rod.stafford using gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for pointing that out, I realize not only did I use the wrong
> language but I did not describe the situation accurately.  I do need to
> address the situation where both variables E and F actually pass, that is
> the majority case, one or the other can fail, but there can never be a
> situation where E and F both fail.  I do not know a specific term for that
> situation, but you are correct that mutual exclusivity is wrong.   While I
> can generate a list of all possible combinations with the expand.grid
> function (which I am not committed to by the way), it would be very helpful
> if I could exclude the combinations where E and F both fail.  I am not sure
> where to go from here, but the solution does not have to be elegant or even
> efficient because I do not need to scale higher than 6 variables.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:26 AM, S Ellison <S.Ellison using lgcgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:20 AM, R Stafford <rod.stafford using gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > But I have the extra condition that if E is true, then F must be
>> false, and
>> > > vice versa,
>>
>> Question: Does 'vice versa' mean
>> a) "if E is False, F must be True"
>> or
>> b) "if F is True, E must be False"?
>> ... which are not the same.
>>
>> b) (and mutual exclusivity in general) does not rule out the condition "E
>> False, F False", which would not be addressed by the
>> pass/fail equivalent equivalent of F <- !E
>>
>>
>>